Reading mode: Light Dark

The miracle of modern post processing

Go to last post
M

mangurian

Senior Member
Messages
1,539
Reaction score
890
Location
US
I am testing out my new lens. I took some shots in a semi-dark room. The ISO is 12800.
Below is what the original RAW looked like and the pp image after just increasing exposure, correcting a color cast on the wall, and denoise. Taken with the RF100-500mm at 100mm on a Canon R5.



A downsized RAW
A downsized RAW



The downsized pp image
The downsized pp image
 
I also have an R5. With that camera and Topaz AI, I have just stopped worrying about ISO. If I'm doing landscapes, then fine: ISO 100 and a tripod. But when I'm shooting handheld I shoot in manual mode with Auto ISO. I'm always amazed at the quality of the images I can get at ISOs that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago with older cameras.
 
mangurian said:
I am testing out my new lens. I took some shots in a semi-dark room. The ISO is 12800.
Below is what the original RAW looked like and the pp image after just increasing exposure, correcting a color cast on the wall, and denoise. Taken with the RF100-500mm at 100mm on a Canon R5.

A downsized RAW
A downsized RAW

The downsized pp image
The downsized pp image
Click to expand...
If you think Adobe's AI Denoise is good, you should take a look at DxO's new DeepPRIME XD2s - it's amazing. More detail, less noise and, as far as I can tell, no artifacts. It also runs about 2x faster on my Mac Studio and doesn't require generating an intermediate space-hogging, workflow-complicating DNG file.

BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
 
Last edited:
ppage said:
I also have an R5. With that camera and Topaz AI, I have just stopped worrying about ISO. If I'm doing landscapes, then fine: ISO 100 and a tripod. But when I'm shooting handheld I shoot in manual mode with Auto ISO. I'm always amazed at the quality of the images I can get at ISOs that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago with older cameras.
Click to expand...
After testing DxO's new DeepPRIME XD2s noise reduction recently, I realized that my ISO ceiling for event photos to be published online is now up from 25,600 to 51,200.

Thinking back 20 years, when max ISO was 800, this seems insane.
 
KoolKool said:
But not blown out highlight ;)
Click to expand...
If you have an ISO-invariant camera, you can use the same aperture and shutter speed but set ISO 1-4 stops lower to protect highlights, then brighten in processing and wind up with noise no higher than if you'd used a higher ISO setting. There's a good article about this somewhere here on DPR.
 
Post a full-sized image because downsizing so much by itself gets rid of a lot of visible noise. The noise is still there but difficult to see in such a small image.
 
Jacques Cornell said:
BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".
Click to expand...
I like to say "processed RAWS. Post processing is a term that originated when most shot JPEG, TIFF etc. so you were processing an image that had been previously processed by the camera.
 
tbcass said:
Jacques Cornell said:
BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".
Click to expand...
I like to say "processed RAWS. Post processing is a term that originated when most shot JPEG, TIFF etc. so you were processing an image that had been previously processed by the camera.
Click to expand...
That includes smartphone cameras. I'm still not convinced that anything that leaves a smartphone camera as a "RAW" hasn't left with some processing.
 
mangurian said:
mangurian said:
That includes smartphone cameras. I'm still not convinced that anything that leaves a smartphone camera as a "RAW" hasn't left with some processing.
Click to expand...
Why ?
Click to expand...
Just after looking closely at "raw" dngs produced by my Pixel9XL with the same shot processed in camera to a 50MP jpeg.
 
mangurian said:
mangurian said:
That includes smartphone cameras. I'm still not convinced that anything that leaves a smartphone camera as a "RAW" hasn't left with some processing.
Click to expand...
Why ?
Click to expand...
They almost always include some multi-frame computational photographic magic, to overcome the limitations of the tiny sensor. These tricks let the cameras increase the sharpness, dynamic range, resolution and high ISO performance. They also apply optical corrections. It’s impossible to tell that a multi-frame sequence is being shot and combined, unless you notice a processing delay, as the camera is completely silent. I think some phones combine frames from more than one camera.

So I too am convinced that the so-called raw images from smartphones are actually highly processed, multi-frame stacked images, simply saved in a better format than 8-bit JPEGs. Products that require real raw files (eg, PhotoLab) therefore can’t process them.
 
Last edited:
Jacques Cornell said:
BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing.
Click to expand...
i think someone was incorrect. Post processing is a shorter way to say processing in post, and post means after something has happened. So IMO, post processing in digital photography refers to processing after the result has left the camera, regardless of the file delivery format, or to what degree it was already processed in-camera (even RAW files have been processed before leaving the camera). But either way, we know what's meant.
 
Last edited:
tbcass said:
Jacques Cornell said:
BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".
Click to expand...
I like to say "processed RAWS. Post processing is a term that originated when most shot JPEG, TIFF etc. so you were processing an image that had been previously processed by the camera.
Click to expand...
When you think about the movie industry where problems will be "fixed in post", post simply means a time when the film is shot and the editing begins. With film there is no "processing" while shooting, as there is today with digital.

So, the term "post processing" may be archaic, but as a grizzled veteran I say the old ways are best.

ETA - oops, didn't read to the bottom of the thread and Ishwanu beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top